Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Issues in Globalization
Transcript of Issues in Globalization
International theory at the beginning of XXI c
Is it really happening or is it a myth? Is it new or old?
Is it good or bad?
Does it produce convergence?
Does it mark the end of nation-state?
Is there a global culture in the making?
Is it an inevitable process or deliberate project?
"genuinely social theory of international system"
(neo) realism (s)
(based on Smith and Owens, 2006)
definitions play an important role in delineating the knowledge, and because they have these effects they require scrutiny not replication
‘to make a claim about the definition of a certain word is to make a claim about how the word ought to be used, it is not to describe how the word is used’
(Tanesini as quoted in Bacchi, 2000, p.45)
pre-social actors have fixed preferences which they try to optimize under a set of constraints, their behaviour can be explained by the logic of consequences
" (...) is about
and its role in international life" (Ruggie 1998: 856)
agent - structure relationship
the world is irreducibly social and cannot be reduced to the sum of the already existing individuals
e.g. neoliberal views that invisible forces drive economic globalization
the role of ideas and
social construction of reality
role of communicative and
actors are products of sociocultural environment, which shapes/ constructs the way they see themselves, their interests, and acceptable actions
logic of consequence
logic of appropriateness
rules not only regulate practices of actors but create the very possibilities for these practices;
not only regulate actions of agents with fixed interests but also construct those interests and define what's appropriate behaviour;
rules are not naturally existing but revised in practice, through reflection and argumentation
actors give meaning and interpret the world through socially constructed knowledge/ shared ideas and understanding
(e.g. balance of power)
"anarchy is what states make of it" (Wendt 1992) --> attention to how beliefs and practices make the world and how changing them may change the world
dependent on human agreement, but taken for granted and seen as objective, thus constraining our actions
denaturalizing what's taken for granted
What does it mean for our
theorizing of 'globalization'?
how underlying normative structures shape the identities and interests of actors, who through their practices re-create that very structure
HOW WE SEE THE WORLD
HOW WE SEE OURSELVES
fixing of meanings
at the essence of politics
who gets to fix the meanings?
WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN FOR EDUCATION?
CS's MOST INFLUENTIAL WORKS (after Barnett)
(1983): Review of Waltz's "Theory of international politics": critique of overtly structuralist view, which does not offer a way to understand change and transformation
(1984): critique of neo-realism:
can't see how states' fixed interests are created, constructed and changed by global-historical forces, commitment to materialism - society devoid of ideas, beliefs and rules
basic concepts in intl poltics treated as natural objects
(1987): introdued the issue agent-structure into the field
(1989): the idea of regulative and constitutive rules;
encouraged to use interpretive method to understand how actors make meaning and debate those rules
Globalization as a discourse
Globalization of cultural standards, norms and rules
CS allows for more complex and nuanced understanding of cultural globalization:
homogeneity, erosion of local or indigenous values and understandings vs hybrid/ glocalized cultures
discourse as power
discourse as reasoning
e.g. rules for driving,
e.g. rules of games,
rules of sovereignty
actors do not only seek to satisfy their fixed interest, but are ready to change those interests or even their worldviews if there are good arguments for it
the ability to contest and change dominant discourses
we give meanings to the world, but from the position available to us by discursive context we are embedded in production of meaning through which power relationships are established
interrogating the origins of constructs,
examining the interplay between ideas, institutions, political ulterior motives, moral actors,
reconsidering the accepted norms by demonstrating that they are imagined and our imagination has been restricted
globalization discourse = neoliberal discourse
universal, affecting all, inevitable, irreversible, driven by invisible forces;
if you think about the world as globalized --> interconnectedness, networks, interdependence
what about increasing fragmentation and inequalities;
underlying power structures?
opened up discursive space of meaning structure allowing contesting dominant interpretations
theory kindapped by ideologists
different theories account for different worlds
R: states struggling for power need to develop military capabilities to defend themselves, lack of trust --> states potentially dangerous to each other
L: institutions play a great role in achieving peace, norms and rules matter
critical/ post-modern security studies:
"Changing the way we think about international relations can bring fundamental shift towards greater intl security” (Baylis, p 311)
rejecting the idea of state as the natural object of analysis --> state in fact the source of security problems;
realism as central problem --> discourse of power and rule; anarchy --> power politics
starting from a different world -- > new possibilties for security open up, new ways can be imagined:
e.g. focus on human instead of state -->
; security should be about freeing people from social, physical, economic, political and other constraints that stop them from carrying out what they would freely choose to do (Baylis, 313)
what needs to be denaturalized?
How can these processes be subjected to political steering; how does politics change in the time of globalization?-- > Risses' text
POSSIBILITIES FOR CHANGE
what is, need not be
How do ideas, models, practices, beliefs, norms, strategies, etc spread? (diffusion)
Why do certain rules (informal - norms, conventions, formal - laws) spread and get stronger while others do not? --> institutional isomorphism - convergence around a single model (e.g. nation-state model, passports/ visas, democracy, education systems, market-driven economy, environmental agreements)
How do norms originate, rise and widespread? How do they become internationalized and institutionalized? What are the causes and consequences of international institutions and organizations (humanitarianism, citizenship, human rights, humanitarian/military intervention etc)
Who/ what are the agents that decide what counts as acceptable behaviour? (socialization in world politics, the role of civic society???)
to attract needed resources?
some ways are superior than others?
seen as successful/ legitimate?
symbolic legitimacy and status?
role of professional associations and expert networks?
role of academia, post-graduate programmes?
focus on security and military issues - the high politics
political economy, environmental issues, human rights issues - the low politics
world politics must be understood within the underlying structure --> hidden workings of global capitalism system are the context in which international events occur; capitalis is the main cause of international conflict
A method and focus of research interested in:
how societies develop through history
the complexities of state as an organization: how different kind of states have been produced
liberal--> "Where are the women?" (Enloe 1989); men and women have equal rights; looking at the ways women are excluded/ prevented from political activity and at the ways woman's role in actions of the statemen was ignored by international theory
Marxist/ socialist --> gender inequalities are the result of capitalis system/ and of patriarchal system of male dominance
standpoint feminism--> premised upon the unique qualities of women, who have a unique perspective because of their subordination; knowledge, concepts and categories of the world are based on the masculine behavior and experiences; RISK -- essentialising what it means to be a woman, "this is how women think"
post-modernist --> questions the distinction between sex and gender, sex as equally constructed as gender ---> how world politics construct masculinity and feminity; 'gender is doing'
post-colonial --> bringing up the voices of the women in the global South, who are seen as underrepresented in other strands and whose interests and concerns do not necessary align with those of the West; critique of academic intellectuals who claim to be able to speak for the oppressed -- > cultural imperialism/ epistemic violenc; bringing in the issue of 'race'
deals with "how the world should look like" and the role of ethical argument in construction of the world
objects the idea of the objective theory
two main normative positions:
--> individuals and humanity OR political communities as bearers of rights and obligation (some major issues: (humanitarian) intervention, gender, human rights, moral value of state autonomy, the ethics of 'just war', international justice/ moral responsibilities of intl institutions)
increasingly policy relevant questions as states feel the need to justify their choices in moral terms
substantial theoretical differences within various strands BUT --> shared scepticism towards any foundational theories that claim have access to the "truth"
power-knowledge relationship: all power requires knowledge, all knowledge relies on existing power relations
in IR: investigating the central concepts and knowledge of IR to show how they depend on power relations (e.g. sovereignty)
genealogy --> history of presence, how certain regimes of truth have dominated the others --> turning 'taken-for-granted' into a question (e.g. development, progress, famine, hunger, security, language)
textual strategies - how we interpret the world --> deconstruction (showing the arbitrariness of seemingly 'natural' oppositions of language: bad/ good, legal/ illegal, male/ female, civilized/ barbaric, developing/ developed, public/ private, anarchy/ sovereignty, poor/ rich)
focus on continuity and persistence of colonial power structures in world politics, but also in terms of economy of knowledge production (coloniality)
how socially constructed gender, race and class differences structure/ sustain the power relations --> global inequalities and hierarchies
how racism operates in world politics (e.g. think about the response to refugee crisis?)
focuses also on forms of resistance --> counterhegemonies --> violent or peaceful resistance: inherent violence in struggles for decolonization (F. Fanon), but post-colonial scholarship as one form of peaceful resistance
"globalisation as an outcome cannot be explained simply by invoking globalisation as a process tending towards that outcome" (Rosenberg 2000: 2)
“the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities” (Giddens, 1990, p. 64)
a process (or set of processes) which “embodies a transformation of the spatial organisation of social relations and transactions – assessed in terms of their extensity, intensity, velocity and impact – generating transcontinental or interregional flows and networks of activity, interaction, and the exercise of power (Held, et al, 1999)
all those processes by which the peoples of the world are incorporated into a single world society.’ –Albrow, 1990
processes whereby many social relations become relatively delinked from territorial geography so that human lives are increasingly played out in the world as a single place.’ –Sholte, 2001
Increase in ‘globalism’, which reflects the density of networks of interdependence at multicontinental distances. – Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, 2000
"[T]he inexorable integration of markets, nation-states, and technologies to a degree never witnessed before-in a way that is enabling individuals, corporations and nation-states to reach around the world farther, faster, deeper and cheaper than ever before . . . . the spread of free-market capitalism to virtually every country in the world " (T.L. Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree, 1999, p. 7-8).
Integration on the basis of a project pursuing "market rule on a global scale" (P. McMichael, Development and Social Change, 2000, p. xxiii, 149).
The compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole . . . . concrete global interdependence and consciousness of the global whole in the twentieth century" (R. Robertson, Globalization, 1992, p. 8).
"A social process in which the constraints of geography on social and cultural arrangements recede and in which people become increasingly aware that they are receding" (M. Waters, Globalization, 1995, p. 3).
"As experienced from below, the dominant form of globalization means a historical transformation: in the economy, of livelihoods and modes of existence; in politics, a loss in the degree of control exercised locally . . . . and in culture, a devaluation of a collectivity's achievements . . . . Globalization is emerging as a political response to the expansion of market power . . . . [It] is a domain of knowledge." (J.H. Mittelman, The Globalization Syndrome, 2000, p. 6).
GOAL: to engage critically with complex issues
1. Everyone brings valid knowledge
2. Our/All Knowledge is partial and incomplete
3. All knowledge can/should be questioned
1. Space with multiple views
2. No competition for truth
4. Conflict and dissonance
Interrelated aspects (after Held and McGrew 2003) :
“Far beyond the issue of globalization itself, the necessary integration of human sciences to understand it in all its dimensions is one of the many profound consequences of globalization.” (Khan 2003,
SCEPTICS (e.g. Hirst and Thompson, Hay)
(e.g. Ohmae, Scholte, Friedmann)
(e.g. Giddens, Castells)
deny it exists
qualitatively nothing new --> continutation of the Western imperialism
applies only to the 'developed'> world
necessary myth/ ideology (sceptics seek to expose)
the world is actually less globalised economically, politically, culturally than during the heyday of European global empires
rather regionalization and internationalization
state power, nationalism, territorial boundaries still (even more?) important - governments as primary architects of globalization
national culture, based on cultural, linguistic and historical commonalities still (despite being historically a young idea) taken for granted term of reference
integrating global economy is imposing a neoliberal discipline on all governments
nation-state as the fundamental unit of world order has become obsolete, irrelevant, unnatural unit (and so has national culture)
the exclusive link between territory and politcal power has been broken (deterritorialisation)
transnational/ international forces (organizations, institutions, regimes...) have changed the nature of state and civil society
borderless world with denationalized economy
(Held and McGrew, 2003)
attempts to provide more sophisticated conceptual framework
globalization as a "powerful transformative force" with no end ideal type of globalized world
contingent historical process full of contradictions
rejects many points from both sceptical and globalist perspectives - it cannot be limited to the economic aspects, it does not mark the end of nation state, it is qualitatively new
the power or national governments is not diminished but reconstituted and reorganized due to the growing complexity in the more interconnected world
Building blocks of theoretical frameworks (after Jones, 2013):
space and time
territory and scale
system and structure
process and agency
(3 Ps after Khan 2003)
ARE THESE ADEQUATE FOR OUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS GOING ON?
Why international relations discipline?
Do we need to look beyond IR?
Are disciplinary boundaries (un)helpful?
"The starting point for international relations is the existence of states, or independent political communities, each of which possesses a government and asserts sovereignty in relation to a particular portion of the earths's surface and a particular segment of the human population" (Bull, 1977, as cited in Jackson and Owens 2005
STATE (as an ideal-type):
- permanent population occupying defined territory
- sovereignty: independence, right to self-determination and self-defense, nonintervention
what's the relationship between theory and ideology
(neo) liberalism (s)
interest in human condition on the global scale
human is essentially selfish and driven by the need for power and domination
human is perfectable, progress and betterment is possible if the right conditions are created
international system has no central authority
wars are inevitable, nothing can be done, as state's main goal is to
in a hostile, competitive environment,
is achieved through balance of power; cooperation is limited as states are more concerned with
(who gains more from cooperation); national security of highest importance; states cannot be ever sure about other states' intentions
(lack of trust)
--> focus on power
role of moral and ethics in international relations
the cosmopolitan morality can be achieved through reason and creation of constitutional states
power as combined capabilities of state (in classical realism mainly military power)
all citizens are equal and have certain basic rights
state has authoritative power only invested by the citizens
individual is free and has the right to own property/ productive forces
the most productive economic exchange is based on market driven rule
yes, but the peaceful coexistence can be achieved through
, which is easy to achieve in the areas of
institutions and regimes
can control, regulate and solve the problems; concerned with
(will we all gain from cooperation) --> focus on intentions and preferences; states are the key actors but not the only ones (
ethics of responsibility and consequences
individual vs community interests
are universal values possible???
how to survive?
how to fascilitate cooperation?
domestic vs international morals
immoral acts are allowed if it is for a greater good (state's survival) --> individual's rights can be sacrificed for the community; universal values not possible, as every state has its own values and beliefs -->
domestic and international morals should be the same; ethics guided by the individuals' rights is extended to international order
- Marx as the first theorist of globalization? - globalization as a modern manifestation of long-term development of capitalism
- relevance of Marx's ideas today?
Lesson of XXc: “Marxist thought leads only to a historical end. The future is liberal and capitalist” or is it?
- ideas on capitalism as mode of production perhaps more pertinent than ever --> focus on power as derived from the capital rather than the state (materialism)
- aim to expose underlying, deeper, HIDDEN TRUTH about the world
- the world has to be studied as a whole
- social class - fundamental differences between interests --> EMANCIPATION (‘Philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point however is to change it’ )
What is left out from the debate?
- how to explain actions that emphasize human interests over national ones
- importance of learning- states may shift policy
- globalization shifiting political activity from state
!!! can differ substantially, sharing some ideas and commitments (e.g. focus on emancipation) while disagreeing on other (e.g. focus on economic base vs focus on superstructure)
Frankfurt School thinkers
Gramsci (see also Robert Cox)
"Simplifying to the extreme, I define
as incredulity towards metanarratives" (Lyotard, 1984)
so e.g. Marxism, standpoint feminism or Freud's psychoanalysis are all suspects
How can history have a truth if the truth has a history? (see Foucault)
detailed historical analysis of discoursive practices
unfulfilled material needs, lack of money to buy food, shelter --> eradication by economic growth
unfulfilled material and non-material needs,
lack of common resources availability, community ties, spiritual values --> informal economies
there is not enough food in the world --> population growth is the problem
there is enough food, but there is no access to it --> distribution is the problem
too theoretical and not concerned with 'real' world?
how gender affects world politics and is an effect of world politics
how certain concepts are gendered and what are the consequences of that gendering
J. Ann Tickner (1988):
- rewrote basic realist principles through women's experiences --> critique of rational/ objective (unemotional) theory of intl relations --> objectivity itself is linked with masculinity as being impermeable and absolute; in contrast, subjectivity is linked with femininity for being irrational and non-scientific.
- power seen rather in terms of cooperation rather than competition
- human security, rather than national security
“adding a feminist perspective to the epistemology of international relations… is a state through which we must pass if we are to being to think about constructing an ungendered or human science of international politics which is sensitive to, but goes beyond, both masculine and feminine perspectives” (Tickner, 1988)
influence of European enlightment/modernity
"world politics suddenly becomes very personal: how does your economic position, your ethnicity, your gender, your culture, or your religion determine what globalization means to you?"
(Smith and Baylis, 2006, p. 13)
until 80. the main alternative to the dominant realism/liberalism frame
democratic peace theory
"We do not expect diverse countries to share the same cultures, traditions or even systems of government. But we do expect all nations to uphold these two core sovereign duties: to respect the interests of their own people and the rights of every other sovereign nation."
"If the righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph." (US president Donald Trump, )
regardless of our skin color “our tears are the same”, we need to take action to end “the tears in the world”. (Turkey's president Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
“We human being are one, what affects one of us affects all of us” (Colombia's president, Juan Manuel Santos Calderón)
19.9.2017, to the UN General Assembly
“The safety of all of us is also our safety,” “Their lives are our lives”. “It’s not walls that protect us, it’s our desire to act,” (Emmanuel Macron)
“Aggression can never make anyone stronger, it can never earn anyone a drop of respect”. (Lithuania's president Dalia Grybauskaite)
BUT differences between realist and liberal conceptions and role of state
values of individualism, tolerance, freedom, --> the core of cosmopolitan morality???